Please read this case...Support her actions...
Former Howard Law Professor Dawn V. Martin needs our help! For those of you familiar with the case now it is official Attorney Martin will be pursuing her case in the Supreme Court. We need your support!This matter is more than a court case it is a matter of protecting our safety in the workplace. No one should have to work or live in fear!
Here is the latest press release.
PRESS RELEASE: May 22, 2008
Contact: Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin e-mail: http://us.f816.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com
(202) 408-7040; (703) 642-0207 website: http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/
Law Professor will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse Decision Holding
that a Woman Can be Fired for being Stalked by a Stranger
Roaming Freely through her Workplace
Washington, D.C. – On March 31, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judges Edwards, Henderson and Williams, decided the appeal of Martin v. Howard University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXI S 19516, 1999 WL 1295339; 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 964; 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1587 (D.D.C. 1999). Prof. Dawn V. Martin was
harassed by a serial campus stalker. Her contract was “not renewed” after she asked the university to implement its own security procedures to bar the stalker from the law school.
During oral argument, on March 17, 2008 , Ms. Martin told the Court: “The precedent set by this Court will determine how employers and educational institutions will respond to stalking and other types of workplace and campus violence – particularly when it is directed against women. If a woman can be stalked in her workplace, and fired for asking her employer to take reasonable steps to keep him out of the workplace, then women will be forced to
choose between their safety and their livelihood – a Hobson’s choice.”
Less than two weeks later, in an unpublished decision by the three-judge panel, the Court squarely placed women in the position of choosing between their jobs and their safety, if
they are stalked at work. The serial campus stalker only knew that Prof. Martin existed because he roamed through her workplace freely, prowling for a female professor who fit
his fantasy concept of a “wife.” This delusional, homeless man, Leonard Harrison, had
been targeting women of color, at Universities since the mid-1980s. Harrison had his own vision of his “natural wife,” or “soul-mate,” whom he believed was the physical
embodiment of a fictional character, Geneva Crenshaw, in a book, written by the renowned NYU law professor, Derrick Bell.
Ms. Martin asked the entire Court to review the Panel decision, but no judge called for a
vote on the case, so her request was denied. Ms. Martin said: “The only hope for reversal now is to go to the United States Supreme Court. I am looking for groups that are willing to come together to file a joint Amicus Brief at the Supreme Court level.” Groups interested in providing support should contact Ms. Martin at http://us.f816.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com.
In 1999, the federal district court set precedent in Martin by adopting the EEOC Regulation
29 CFR 1604.11(e), holding that an employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to stop it. Howard asked the Court to
reverse this decision and invalidate the EEOC Regulation. The Court of Appeals did not address Howard’s argument, or otherwise discuss the lower court’s holding on how
employers should address non-employee harassment of employees.
Martin is the first case considering the concept of “gender profiling” in employment, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), as Amicus Curiae filed a Brief supporting Martin. Ms. Martin said, “In 1999, the district court judge said that it was ‘clear’ that Harrison harassed me based on my sex –but seven years later, after all of the evidence was presented at trial, the same judge suddenly submitted the question to the jury. The
jurors were clearly confused on the law. They asked the court to give them additional instruction on the definition of sexual harassment, but the judge would not provide it. Based
on what they understood the law to be, the jurors concluded that Harrison ’ stalking was not sexual in nature or based on my gender. That meant that there is no statute to protect me from being stalked in my workplace from being fired for reporting it.”
The Court of Appeals held that Ms. Martin misinterpreted Judge Hogan’s 1999 decision; however, on October 20, 2003, Magistrate Judge Facciola, to whom Judge Hogan referred
the case, specifically detailed what issues were decided in 1999 and would not be “triable issues of fact” for the jury and what issues would proceed to a jury at trial. The Court of Appeals discounted MJ Facciola’s interpretation of Judge Hogan’s decision, stating that he could not overrule Judge Hogan; however, as Ms. Martin stressed in her Brief, Reply Brief and oral argument, Judge Hogan adopted Judge Facciola’s decision as his own, on
September 16, 2005 .
The district court also held that “groping” and “touching” are “typical” indicia of sexual harassment cases and that since Harrison did not touch Prof. Martin, the jury had reason to find that she was not sexually harassed.” The Court of Appeals did not address this issue. Since it has not been overturned, this precedent set by this decision arguably requires that a woman to be assaulted in order to establish that she was sexually harassed in her workplace.
The Court of Appeals also held that because, on one occasion in 1990, Harrison threatened Prof Bell, this was enough to defeat Ms. Martin’s claim that Harrison harassed her because of her gender; however, Ms. Martin repeatedly pointed out that Harrison did not stalk Prof.
Bell. The legal definition of “stalking” requires repeated acts of harassment directed toward the same victim. Harrison contacted Prof. Bell on only one occasion, and then
only to solicit his assistance in identifying the next woman he would stalk -- any woman that
he believed might be the “model” for “Geneva Crenshaw.” Ms. Martin said, “Howard’s argument is like saying that John Hinckley did not sexually harass Jodie Foster when he
stalked her because he also attempted to kill President Reagan. The fact that a sexually harassing stalker may also have committed a violent act against a man in his lifetime does
not negate the fact that he sexually harassed a woman in another setting.”
Martin also presented issues regarding actionable retaliation under Title VII, but the Court
of Appeals deemed these issues moot. Since the Court determined that Howard was free to commit any retaliatory act against Prof. Martin for being stalked, with no Title VII penalty, the lower court’s definition of acts that constitute actionable retaliation under Title VII was irrelevant to this case; however, the Court of Appeals’ failure to reverse the lower court on this issue leaves the lower court’s precedent intact: an employer may leave positions unfilled, cancel vacancies and/or convert advertised positions to positions for which an applicant is
not the best qualified, even where it is done to prevent the most qualified applicant from
being hired, in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment – or any other EEO violation, whether based on race, national origin, religion, ethnicity, age or disability.
Ms. Martin also asked the Court to define the circumstances under which Title VII plaintiffs can be ordered to pay the litigation costs of the defendant. The National Organization of
Women (NOW) recently ran a campaign protesting the 11th Circuit’s assessment of costs against the plaintiff in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, after the Supreme Court ruled against her in
her sex discrimination claim. Such assessments unfairly punish women who file sex discrimination lawsuits, in good faith, in the public interest. The Court declined to address
this issue.
The Court of Appeals also did not explain why Dean Alice Gresham Bullock’s perjury does not require vacating the verdict. In a July 1, 1999 memorandum to Howard’s General
Counsel, Bullock admitted that she perceived Harrison as a threat to Prof. Martin and “other women” on campus; yet, at trial, she testified that she never perceived Harrison ’s
harassment as sexual harassment, or harassment based on sex/gender. Martin said.
“Neither Howard nor her own personal counsel has denied that she committed perjury.
Alice Gresham Bullock created ten years of contentious and expensive litigation for both sides. She has caused ten years of suffering for my family and me. We will never get
those years back -- the years that I was raising my daughter. This could all have been
avoided if she had simply followed the university’s own security procedures and barred Harrison from the law school rather than devoting her efforts to removing me from the law school.” Briefs are uploaded onto http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.html).
You may also hear radio interviews about the case at that cite.
Dawn V. Martin, EsquireLaw Offices of Dawn V. Martin, LLC1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 300Washington , D.C 20006(202) 408-7040 D.C. phone (703) 642-0207 home office(703) 642-0208 facsimileDVMARTINLAW@yahoo.comhttp://www.dvmartinlaw.com/ Specializing in employment discrimination, civil rights and tort law"Working for Justice in the World"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Former Howard Law Professor Dawn V. Martin needs our help! For those of you familiar with the case now it is official Attorney Martin will be pursuing her case in the Supreme Court. We need your support!This matter is more than a court case it is a matter of protecting our safety in the workplace. No one should have to work or live in fear!
Here is the latest press release.
PRESS RELEASE: May 22, 2008
Contact: Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin e-mail: http://us.f816.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com
(202) 408-7040; (703) 642-0207 website: http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/
Law Professor will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse Decision Holding
that a Woman Can be Fired for being Stalked by a Stranger
Roaming Freely through her Workplace
Washington, D.C. – On March 31, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judges Edwards, Henderson and Williams, decided the appeal of Martin v. Howard University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXI S 19516, 1999 WL 1295339; 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 964; 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1587 (D.D.C. 1999). Prof. Dawn V. Martin was
harassed by a serial campus stalker. Her contract was “not renewed” after she asked the university to implement its own security procedures to bar the stalker from the law school.
During oral argument, on March 17, 2008 , Ms. Martin told the Court: “The precedent set by this Court will determine how employers and educational institutions will respond to stalking and other types of workplace and campus violence – particularly when it is directed against women. If a woman can be stalked in her workplace, and fired for asking her employer to take reasonable steps to keep him out of the workplace, then women will be forced to
choose between their safety and their livelihood – a Hobson’s choice.”
Less than two weeks later, in an unpublished decision by the three-judge panel, the Court squarely placed women in the position of choosing between their jobs and their safety, if
they are stalked at work. The serial campus stalker only knew that Prof. Martin existed because he roamed through her workplace freely, prowling for a female professor who fit
his fantasy concept of a “wife.” This delusional, homeless man, Leonard Harrison, had
been targeting women of color, at Universities since the mid-1980s. Harrison had his own vision of his “natural wife,” or “soul-mate,” whom he believed was the physical
embodiment of a fictional character, Geneva Crenshaw, in a book, written by the renowned NYU law professor, Derrick Bell.
Ms. Martin asked the entire Court to review the Panel decision, but no judge called for a
vote on the case, so her request was denied. Ms. Martin said: “The only hope for reversal now is to go to the United States Supreme Court. I am looking for groups that are willing to come together to file a joint Amicus Brief at the Supreme Court level.” Groups interested in providing support should contact Ms. Martin at http://us.f816.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=dvmartinlaw@yahoo.com.
In 1999, the federal district court set precedent in Martin by adopting the EEOC Regulation
29 CFR 1604.11(e), holding that an employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to stop it. Howard asked the Court to
reverse this decision and invalidate the EEOC Regulation. The Court of Appeals did not address Howard’s argument, or otherwise discuss the lower court’s holding on how
employers should address non-employee harassment of employees.
Martin is the first case considering the concept of “gender profiling” in employment, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), as Amicus Curiae filed a Brief supporting Martin. Ms. Martin said, “In 1999, the district court judge said that it was ‘clear’ that Harrison harassed me based on my sex –but seven years later, after all of the evidence was presented at trial, the same judge suddenly submitted the question to the jury. The
jurors were clearly confused on the law. They asked the court to give them additional instruction on the definition of sexual harassment, but the judge would not provide it. Based
on what they understood the law to be, the jurors concluded that Harrison ’ stalking was not sexual in nature or based on my gender. That meant that there is no statute to protect me from being stalked in my workplace from being fired for reporting it.”
The Court of Appeals held that Ms. Martin misinterpreted Judge Hogan’s 1999 decision; however, on October 20, 2003, Magistrate Judge Facciola, to whom Judge Hogan referred
the case, specifically detailed what issues were decided in 1999 and would not be “triable issues of fact” for the jury and what issues would proceed to a jury at trial. The Court of Appeals discounted MJ Facciola’s interpretation of Judge Hogan’s decision, stating that he could not overrule Judge Hogan; however, as Ms. Martin stressed in her Brief, Reply Brief and oral argument, Judge Hogan adopted Judge Facciola’s decision as his own, on
September 16, 2005 .
The district court also held that “groping” and “touching” are “typical” indicia of sexual harassment cases and that since Harrison did not touch Prof. Martin, the jury had reason to find that she was not sexually harassed.” The Court of Appeals did not address this issue. Since it has not been overturned, this precedent set by this decision arguably requires that a woman to be assaulted in order to establish that she was sexually harassed in her workplace.
The Court of Appeals also held that because, on one occasion in 1990, Harrison threatened Prof Bell, this was enough to defeat Ms. Martin’s claim that Harrison harassed her because of her gender; however, Ms. Martin repeatedly pointed out that Harrison did not stalk Prof.
Bell. The legal definition of “stalking” requires repeated acts of harassment directed toward the same victim. Harrison contacted Prof. Bell on only one occasion, and then
only to solicit his assistance in identifying the next woman he would stalk -- any woman that
he believed might be the “model” for “Geneva Crenshaw.” Ms. Martin said, “Howard’s argument is like saying that John Hinckley did not sexually harass Jodie Foster when he
stalked her because he also attempted to kill President Reagan. The fact that a sexually harassing stalker may also have committed a violent act against a man in his lifetime does
not negate the fact that he sexually harassed a woman in another setting.”
Martin also presented issues regarding actionable retaliation under Title VII, but the Court
of Appeals deemed these issues moot. Since the Court determined that Howard was free to commit any retaliatory act against Prof. Martin for being stalked, with no Title VII penalty, the lower court’s definition of acts that constitute actionable retaliation under Title VII was irrelevant to this case; however, the Court of Appeals’ failure to reverse the lower court on this issue leaves the lower court’s precedent intact: an employer may leave positions unfilled, cancel vacancies and/or convert advertised positions to positions for which an applicant is
not the best qualified, even where it is done to prevent the most qualified applicant from
being hired, in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment – or any other EEO violation, whether based on race, national origin, religion, ethnicity, age or disability.
Ms. Martin also asked the Court to define the circumstances under which Title VII plaintiffs can be ordered to pay the litigation costs of the defendant. The National Organization of
Women (NOW) recently ran a campaign protesting the 11th Circuit’s assessment of costs against the plaintiff in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, after the Supreme Court ruled against her in
her sex discrimination claim. Such assessments unfairly punish women who file sex discrimination lawsuits, in good faith, in the public interest. The Court declined to address
this issue.
The Court of Appeals also did not explain why Dean Alice Gresham Bullock’s perjury does not require vacating the verdict. In a July 1, 1999 memorandum to Howard’s General
Counsel, Bullock admitted that she perceived Harrison as a threat to Prof. Martin and “other women” on campus; yet, at trial, she testified that she never perceived Harrison ’s
harassment as sexual harassment, or harassment based on sex/gender. Martin said.
“Neither Howard nor her own personal counsel has denied that she committed perjury.
Alice Gresham Bullock created ten years of contentious and expensive litigation for both sides. She has caused ten years of suffering for my family and me. We will never get
those years back -- the years that I was raising my daughter. This could all have been
avoided if she had simply followed the university’s own security procedures and barred Harrison from the law school rather than devoting her efforts to removing me from the law school.” Briefs are uploaded onto http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.html).
You may also hear radio interviews about the case at that cite.
Dawn V. Martin, EsquireLaw Offices of Dawn V. Martin, LLC1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 300Washington , D.C 20006(202) 408-7040 D.C. phone (703) 642-0207 home office(703) 642-0208 facsimileDVMARTINLAW@yahoo.comhttp://www.dvmartinlaw.com/ Specializing in employment discrimination, civil rights and tort law"Working for Justice in the World"
No virus found in this incoming message.
.jpg)
3 comments:
Hi Myra,
Thank you for posting this valuable information. A woman should not have to choose between her personal safety and her income.
We must unite and support Attorney Martin and this case as our futures depend upon it. I don't want for our future generations of women to ever have to work or live in fear.
Thank you Myra for all that you do on behalf of women and children.
Alexis
Myra, thank you for your TREMENDOUS support in my case, Martin v. Howard Univ. and Alice Gresham Bullock, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 08-204. I wanted to update your readers on its status and also, to fill them in on some of the details of the case. On December 12, 2008, I filed a Rule 44 Petition for Rehearing in the Supreme Court, asking the Court to reconsider my case. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), joined by other women's advocacy and anti-violence groups, filed an Amicus Curiae (friend of the Court) Brief supporting my original Petition, but the Court denied the Amici’s motion to late file it, so their arguments were not considered. I have petitioned the Court to consider their arguments and also to reconsider, in light of its pending review of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, another case similarly alleging sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. See http://www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.html.
As a law professor at Howard University, I was stalked by a delusional, homeless, serial stalker of African-American female professors, Leonard Harrison. The stalker was searching for the physical embodiment of his "fantasy," or ideal "wife" --modeled after a fictional female character, Geneva Crenshaw, in a book, And We are not Saved, written by the renowned Professor Derrick Bell. Instead of following its own security procedures to ban the stalker from campus, Howard responded to my requests for protection by refusing to renew my teaching contract. I sued Howard for sexual harassment/hostile work environment and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex/gender, as well as race, color, ethnic origin and religion. Martin v. Howard University is the first to present the issue of "gender profiling" or "working while female" in the employment context. The lower courts held that I had no legal recourse against Howard University for failing to take reasonable steps to end the workplace stalking or for refusing to renew my teaching contract after I asked the Law School administration to use the University’s own Campus Security procedures to protect me – as well as other women -- from a serial campus stalker.
I filed my case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment that is “sexual in nature” or based on gender. I argued that: 1) since 78% of stalking victims are women, stalking constitutes harassment on the basis of gender; 2) when the stalker uses “gender specific” language and criteria to select his victim, the stalking is harassment based on gender; and 3) where a stalker pursues a woman to make her his “wife,” the harassment is stalking “sexual in nature.” I am asking the Court to apply Title VII to protect women from workplace stalking and from employer retaliation for reporting stalking. Women who are doing nothing more than “working while female” should not have to choose between their jobs and their safety.
In 1999, I set precedent in federal district court, for the D.C. Circuit, in Martin by adopting the EEOC Regulation 29 CFR 1604.11(e), holding that an employer can be held liable for the sexual harassment of an employee, by a non-employee, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to end it. Martin v. Howard University and Alice Gresham Bullock, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19516, 1999 WL 1295339, 81 FEP Cases 964 (BNA), 15 IER Cases 1587 (D.D.C. 1999). Judge Hogan identified the jury questions as: 1) whether Harrison’s harassment was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment; and 2) whether Howard took reasonable steps to end it. The jury agreed with me that Harrison’s harassment did create a “hostile work environment” for me and that Howard did not take reasonable steps to end it; yet the verdict was for Howard. With insufficient legal instruction from the judge, the confused jurors found that the harassment was not based on sex – and therefore, that my complaints were not “protected activity” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Many people have asked me how the jury could possibly have concluded that a man who pursued me to be his “wife” did not pursue me based on my gender – after all, he would not have pursued me to be his “wife” – defined as a “married woman” – if I were a male professor at Howard. He also would not have “profiled” me as “Geneva Crenshaw” if I were male, since “Geneva” is a female character. So, this issue was supposed to be the threshold, “no-brainer” that Judge Hogan had already resolved, as a matter of law, based on the undisputed facts, in his 1999 decision. Judge Hogan did not allow us to question the jury after the trial, but I believe that the determining factor was that Howard repeatedly told the jury that my claim must be defeated because I entitled her memos to then Law School Dean Alice Gresham Bullock “Security Problem on Campus” rather than “Sexual Harassment.” The case law specifically holds that a plaintiff does not need to have used the words “sexual harassment” to invoke Title VII. (I actually did initially use that term, but, as I explained at trial, after the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department characterized Harrison as a “stalker,” that is the term that I used to describe him, since the word “stalking” is, by definition, repeated and serious harassment. I asked Judge Hogan to instruct the jury that it is not necessary to use the precise words “sexual harassment” to invoke Title VII protection, using his own words from his 999 decision, but he flatly refused to provide it. Numerous courts have recognized that stalking is one of the most egregious forms of sexual harassment. Judge Hogan also refused to provide the jury with the D.C. stalking statute, which defines “stalking” as repeated harassment. Without the proper legal framework for analyzing harassment based on sex, jurors were confused into accepting Howard University’s argument that the stalker’s harassment was not sexual in nature or based on sex and that my complaints did not constitute “protected activity.”
I believe that the Court should consider my case along with Crawford. Both Ms. Crawford and I lost their jobs shortly after reporting the harassment to our respective employers. Both of us deprived of the opportunity to prove that we lost their jobs due to retaliation for reporting the harassment. In both Crawford and Martin, the respective Circuit Courts held that we did not engage in “protected activity” because of how we reported the sexual harassment to our employers. The Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford would control the outcome of Martin. If Martin is considered as a companion case to Crawford, or supplements Crawford, the Supreme Court would provide lower courts with a more comprehensive definition of “protected activity,” whether the harasser is an employee or a non-employee in the workplace.
January is National Stalking Awareness Month -- so it is particularly appropriate that, on January 9, 2009, the Supreme Court will consider reviewing a workplace stalking case. Coincidentally, it is also during Stalking Awareness Month that Sky Radio will be broadcasting an interview with me about the case on American Airlines, from December 16, 2008 through January 31, 2009, as one of the women highlighted in its series entitled “Salute to Women in Leadership,” featured in Time Magazine. I am also currently featured as one of "American’s Premier Lawyers,” in “The Law Business Insider which includes another radio interview discussing the case.
In an interview with Barbara Walters, Paula Abdul directed public attention to the issue of workplace stalking, as a result of the recent suicide of a woman stalking her. Ms. Abdul alleged that her employer, American Idol, allowed a stalker on the show -- her workplace --for "entertainment value." A videotaped audition shows a contestant singing a song he had written about his desire to "stalk" Ms. Abdul. These incidents also highlight the fact that there is no federal statute that expressly protects stalking victims against employer retaliation for complaining about stalking -- or that obligates employers to take reasonable steps to keep known stalkers out of the workplace. Thanks again for all of the work you do to help prevent stalking and other abuse, and for helping women survive it.
Every woman in America should be demanding that this case be heard - and that Dawn Martin achieves the justice she deserves. It is not only about Dawn, however - we are all equally vulnerable to sick individuals that stalk defenseless women.
I have not been stalked - but I've on a number of occasions been terrified by a threatening or mentally unbalanced male with whom I found myself alone. How much worse to be in that situation every minute of every day!
There is no excuse for not protecting women from this kind of harassment, certainly none for allowing it to threaten not just their freedom of movement, privacy, personal safety, but their jobs as well!
Yes, if the Supreme Court does not do the right thing, we should hound Congress until they do.
Blessings,
Liberty G
Post a Comment